Skip to main content

A Magnificent Send-Off for Logan


          Hugh Jackman has been Wolverine for seventeen years. He’s been a superhero long before the modern superhero phenomenon and in nearly two decades has been a staple of the X-Men franchise, appearing in all eight movies preceding this one. Logan, directed by James Mangold is his final appearance as the character. Thus it’s important he go out on a high note.
          Essentially the movie Logan is Children of Men with superheroes. Luckily, Children of Men is one of my favourite movies, and Logan I liked a lot as well.
          The year is 2029 and mutants are on the verge of extinction due to deterioration of the mutant gene. Logan (Hugh Jackman) is working as a limousine driver in New Mexico, while also caring for a frail unstable Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), housed in an abandoned plant across the border. When he crosses paths with a young Latina girl called Laura (Dafne Keen) who has similar powers to his, he and Charles attempt to transport her to North Dakota and the Canadian border before enforcers of a sinister government program recapture her.
          This story is remarkably simple and straightforward for a superhero film. It’s mostly just a road trip to get someone across the border to safety. And yes, that theme does feel especially relevant in the modern political climate. Because there isn’t a lot of grand exposition and plot, the film’s allowed to focus a lot more on mood, which it does superbly. This is by far the best shot X-Men movie. There’s a lot of driving through the desert, evoking westerns like Hell or High Water, Unforgiven or even Shane which features in this movie in a clearly metaphorical role. Although there are a number of heavy action sequences, the movie has quiet reflective moments as well. These not only balance out the bloodier moments, but give the audience a chance to bask in the ambience of a scene or Logans’ state of mind. And often they’re framed in a very picturesque way. There’s a rawness to everything, not just brought on by the violence, but the bleak presentation of the characters’ circumstances and the world itself. This is actually kind of ironic considering X-Men in 2000 aspired to the campy comic elements with no shame and this film (supposedly in the same continuity) is rejecting them almost entirely.
          I find it slightly funny that Logan’s characterized as an old man throughout this movie, but Hugh Jackman still looks not much more than middle-aged. That incongruity aside, this is Jackman’s finest hour as the character. You feel what he’s been through, the crumbling of his world and the reason he’s constantly bitter. Never before has there been so much pain on his shoulders, never has he been so broken, and it all comes through in Jackmans’ nuanced performance. It’s only fitting that the X-Men franchise’s most character-driven movie by far, sees that character at his best. And also at his worst, seeing as he’s more vulnerable and weakened than ever, unable to heal himself like he used to. The perfect foil for him is Laura, and newcomer Dafne Keen is amazing. Almost solely through her physical performance she creates a figure with a disturbing past, but someone who clearly cares a lot about her quest, the sliver of hope it poses, and who is both awesome in combat and reticently engaging. Her relationship with Logan which is arguably the films’ backbone, is close but distant. In some ways its development is cliché, but both characters invest you enough on their own, that you welcome it. And what can I say for Patrick Stewart? He simply is one of the best, and rounds out this trio brilliantly. It’s fascinating to see how Charles’ relationship with Logan has evolved, and Stewart performs multiple scenes so skilfully and with such emotion it’s almost heartbreaking. He’s as sweet as the character’s always been, but the dementia of his mental powers which endanger himself and others, adds a new layer of sympathy. The supporting cast consists of a despicable Boyd Holbrook, a surprisingly versatile Stephen Merchant, and an enigmatic Richard E. Grant, all of whom are great.
          There are problematic elements to Logan though. At the end of the second act a new adversary is introduced who works okay but feels a little too silly in contrast to the grave tone. There’s also the fact that X-Men comics exist in this universe, which though it serves a point, also feels tonally out of place. The comic relief in general is often the same way, with jokes that seem written to emanate Deadpool. That’s one of the downsides of the R-rating, as this film goes out of its way to exploit that in the early scenes. There are a number of unnecessary F-bombs for instance and a laughably out-of-nowhere bit of nudity. But even though I think a Wolverine movie could work without an R-rating, there’s no denying it made the action sequences the best he’s ever had. The excessive bloodiness isn’t what makes them work as much as the pacing. In concordance with the theme of ageing, Logan’s fighting is like a man past his prime and it makes each sequence more tense and heavy. The impact of each blow feels that much more brutal and makes the danger to our heroes all the more threatening.
          This was Hugh Jackman’s denouement, and I’m confident that if he were to reappear after this, it would cheapen the character. It may be early to call Logan one of the best superhero films, not least because it subverts many of the tenets of that genre, but this feels at least a partially justifiable assessment. The overarching themes are unequivocally mature and I appreciate that this film isn’t afraid to be open-ended. Not everything is answered nor should it be. Again it reminds me a lot of Children of Men in this, how it’s reaching for something beyond the expectations of the comic book movie. What I can say for certain now is its bolder; with powerful performances, a simple yet affecting story and character drama which exceeds expectations. And it will make you cry.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...